Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: General History
Forum Name: General World History
Forum Description: All aspects of world history, especially topics that span across many regions or periodsModerators: AE Moderators URL: http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=23677Printed Date: 07-Jun-2020 at 09:52Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com

Topic: The Top 100 Leaders in HistoryPosted By: DSMyers1
Subject: The Top 100 Leaders in History
Date Posted: 01-Mar-2008 at 15:37

The Top 100 Leaders in History

(See below for original post)

__________________________________

EDIT: (Through page 9). A numerical system for rating leaders has been adopted, and I am steadily going through all the nations of note in history (by alphabetical order) and evaluating their leaders. I have gone ahead and rated leaders from several of the more important nations to give a more full top 100 leaders list before actually finishing the alphabetical listing of nations. Thus, there are many nations with no leaders on the list at this point that will be on later.

This list is through France in the alphabetical order evaluations; any leaders from after France in the alphabet are not rated definitively yet. This is a BETA list.

I have worked on the http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=13436 - Top 100 Generals listing for several years now, and think it is time to look at a new topic. Several times in that thread I have noted that a man was not a great general, but was a great leader. George Washington is a prime example. Or that a man was a great general but not a great leader--Hannibal, perhaps.

I should define "leader." By a leader, I am talking about the leader of a nation, or the leader of a people. The man (or woman--I'm not leaving out Joan...) does not have to be a political leader or even a military leader. However, this person must change the trajectory of the nation. This is less subjective than the Top 100 Generals, because the impact is more measurable, even for subjects in the far distant past about which we have little detail.

What do I mean by trajectory? A nation is on a specific path--or tribes, or whatever the entity is. After the person's life, they are on a different trajectory or path. What is the difference between those paths? Thus, a great general who creates an empire and then loses it is worthless. Thus Napoleon is not a very great leader.

I do wish to take into account somewhat of what occurred within the person's lifetime, but that should be relatively unimportant--say 25% of the ranking.

I have not yet assembled a full top 100 list, as I do not have enough resources at my disposal. I will, however, comment on what I do have understanding of.

I do not yet want people to simply give their top 10 or 100. I would like people to rank the top that they know of for individual nations/peoples. Eventually, these will all be combined into a cohesive whole.

One thing this more objective system allows for is for great leaders of distant history to be properly evaluated. For example, Sargon of Akkad will be on the list for sure. Hammurabi as well. As generals, they could not be considered.

Here are a few of my considerations/evaluations of one country to start out--I'll add more later as I think about them longer. I start with my own: the US.Top United States Leaders1. George Washington. Without him, the nation is totally different or non-existent. He changed the course of history. Probably a top 5 overall.2. Abraham Lincoln. Again, changed the course of history. Do I agree with his policies? No. But he changed the trajectory of the US, for the stronger. (Of course, I'm in the South, so I don't like him much...) Probably a top 25 overall.3. Thomas Jefferson. Molded the shape of the US, purchased Louisiana. Top 100 overall.4. Dwight D. Eisenhower. WWII and President. Top 100 overall.5. Douglas MacArthur. WWII and Korea. Top 100 overall?6. Franklin Roosevelt. WWII! Top 100 overall?7. Ronald Reagan. End of Cold War.Honestly, that's about all I could come up with. Only the top 2 I consider very strong candidates overall. We just don't have enough history!

I note this list dovetails in with the Top 100 Generals and the Top Political leaders Justinian is putting together. I'm not trying to steal the idea, but rather come up with a coherent combined approach.

Hooray! DSMyers returns for another meticulous hammering out of a "Top 100" list!

I look forward to watching this develop, and may offer a few of my own choices later.

-Akolouthos

Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 01-Mar-2008 at 16:27

Currently we are on page one. In won't be long when this thread will be up to 50 pages in no time. Anyway my vote goes to Shaka Zulu. Nah, just messing. For the US I'll go with George Washington though.

For the Northern Baltic/Finnish (in no particular order):Gotthard Kettler (though his achievements lasted for less than 100 years)Gustav Mannerheim

Other places:Friedrich I BarbarossaGenghis Khan (his leadership would be excellent, I believe...)Winston ChurchillGuillaume de Beajeu (misspelled definetly, this one)Friedrich II

-------------There is no emotion, there is peace.
There is no ignorance, there is knowledge.
There is no passion, there is serenity.
There is no chaos, there is harmony.
There is no death, there is the Force.

Posted By: Ikki
Date Posted: 02-Mar-2008 at 01:04

For the muslim world i will give 5:

1. Muhammad

2. Saladdin: the sunni Islam, the Islam as a hole specially for future generations take tones of spirit.

3. Nasser: he symbolize, in the past and sure in the future, the close than the islam was and can be to a real alternative.

4. Selim I: ottoman empire had the base, with him skyrocketed

5. Timur: how to do so much things in so less time.

General:

1. Muhammad: no other man leadering a people, an state, have influeced the history like him.

2. Augustus: the man who built the more important empire of western world, who transformed the face of the Roman Empire.

3. Franklin D. Roosevelt: the perfect man of the democracy, a leader of the free world who took his country from the black depth and put it in the edge of an unsurpassed supremacy.

4. Napoleón Bonaparte: his changes couldn't be seen in five years, in fact his work changed France and Europe for at least two centuries.

5. Ghandi: he represent wich no represent any other leader before him.

Edit: i have changed the muslim order.

Posted By: Knights
Date Posted: 02-Mar-2008 at 01:29

Nice idea Myers. One thing quickly before I put forward some ideas - Hannibal was a great leader, and a great general

1. Jesus (I think he had more of an impact than Mohammed)2. Genghis Khan (what a life story...)3. Julius Caesar (charisma personified)4. Winston Churchill5. Mohammed

Those ideas are unranked by the way.

I look forward to seeing how discourse develops.

Regards,

- Knights -

-------------

Posted By: DSMyers1
Date Posted: 02-Mar-2008 at 04:53

1. I would like to avoid religious leaders on this list, as it tends to stir feelings and they primarily did not impact a specific nation. Since the primary criteria is based on the trajectory of nations, that doesn't fit in so well.

2. One way to look at it would be--if the person had not existed, what would likely have happened with that nation/people? For example, had Hannibal not existed, how would the future have changed for Carthage? By that standard, he was not a great leader. However, I will also take into account what happened within the person's lifetime, and by that secondary metric he did quite well. He'll probably end up in the 60s or 70s (maybe even lower).

3. Please due try to be coherent with some backing for the guys you recommend. I do prefer if they are sorted by country. I don't have time to research everybody myself, so do some of the work yourself if you can....

1. I would like to avoid religious leaders on this list, as it tends to stir feelings and they primarily did not impact a specific nation. Since the primary criteria is based on the trajectory of nations, that doesn't fit in so well.

You can't avoid Muhammad with that argument, at the moment that opposite to most of the religious leaders as Jesus, Buda, Zoroaster... Muhammad was a real leader of his entire people, the arabs, in a political and military sense.

Posted By: ckukner
Date Posted: 02-Mar-2008 at 13:47

Ikki wrote:

DSMyers1 wrote:

1. I would like to avoid religious leaders on this list, as it tends to stir feelings and they primarily did not impact a specific nation. Since the primary criteria is based on the trajectory of nations, that doesn't fit in so well.

You can't avoid Muhammad with that argument, at the moment that opposite to most of the religious leaders as Jesus, Buda, Zoroaster... Muhammad was a real leader of his entire people, the arabs, in a political and military sense.

Totaly agreed. Even if you are atheist you can't deny Muhammad existed. Other than being an prophet he was a military leader and the head of the Arabs. But you may call Jesus, Abraham, Adam, Moses all myths if you don't believe in God. And they had no impact on history other than bringing the word of God.

Posted By: Ikki
Date Posted: 02-Mar-2008 at 18:08

Spain, i will count only medieval christian kingdoms to present, not prerroman Iberia, no romans, no barbarians and Visigoths, no muslims.

1. Isabel the Catholic: she married with Ferdinand unifiying the core of the spanish territories, she ordered the conquest of Canary Islands finishing 2000 years of native culture borning a new society, she ordered the conquest of Grenada finishing 800 years of muslim presence in Iberia; she supported the discovery of América and the expansion there, she expulsed the jews wich were the finest artisans and traders of the country, she created the Inquisition wich is crucial for the future intellectual development of Spain, and following to Ferdinand supported the expansion in Europe and with the dinastic policy stablished the international alliances of Spain for two centuries. With the exception of these two matters where Ferdinand the Catholic was the primary leader, the others was initiatives of Isabel for the interest (or crucial damage) of the castillian crown.

2. Philip II: the greatest king of Spain, the man who took all the forces of the kingdom at the service of a trully global supremacy. The expansion in Asia and the consolidation of the american conquest, the fight stopping the ottomans, the effort destroying the protestants, the long fight in Northwestern Europe with spanish arms so high than never before or after, the struggle for the supremacy on the seas with England, the adquisition of the vast portuguese empire. At the end an empire where the sun never set, but a horrible weakening of the spanish inner forces.

3. Charles III: this king was the opposite to the greats leaders of the XVI century. A man worried about the inner growth of the country; with him the economy expanded, the fields where spanish companies was pushed out was take up again, some improvements in economy was introducted, the Navy grew to the third world position, the pressure over the people was light with a foreign policy tight to the spanish interest. After a first international failure, he took advantage with the independence of USA expanding the empire; the cultural achievements along his reign was great in scientific and literary fields. He was loved by the people because this and his improvement of some cities as Madrid. He was at all the perfect Enlightement King.

4. Charles I and V of Germany: What to say about him.

5. Ferdinand III: the greatest of the medieval kings with the licence of Alphoso X. Ferdinand was a leader who united the kingdoms of Leon and Castille building a power capable of conquer most of the ramaining muslim regions. Some of the greatest cities of the western world like Seville and Córdoba fell in his hands and the medieval spanish armies peaked.

Out of category, Felipe González for recent leaders: surelly he will not qualify for the first 100, but i think he is the best of recent years. Some problems when he was president: corruption and GAL (state terrorism), but with him the country find the needed stability for a democratic consolidation, he won four elections three by absolute majority. Was a political master and admired outside from Spain so many times he has been elected for some important international works in diplomatic and political fields.

Posted By: DSMyers1
Date Posted: 02-Mar-2008 at 22:03

ckukner wrote:

Totaly agreed. Even if you are atheist you can't deny Muhammad existed. Other than being an prophet he was a military leader and the head of the Arabs. But you may call Jesus, Abraham, Adam, Moses all myths if you don't believe in God. And they had no impact on history other than bringing the word of God.

Yeah, that's a good point. I am not going to include Jesus, but I may put Moses, David, or Joshua on as they really were great leaders of a single people. I'm just trying to find a way so that this thread won't dissolve in controversy.

Leaders of what? Leaders with the greatest importance living after them?

As I have said several times, leaders of a single people/nation/tribe. The way to evaluate their leadership is to evaluate the direction the nation was headed before them and to compare that to the direction the nation was headed after them, in terms of real power.

I'm not doing leaders of "muslim world" but rather of a people. As such, Abraham doesn't really qualify as he merely was leading his own household (what, 318 trained men when he took on Chedorlaomer and company?) and that doesn't really count. Moses will be on the list, I'm sure. Jesus won't--I'm dealing with leaders of nations. Muhammed probably will as leader of Arabs. For all of those other guys, you will HAVE to give me sources, references, or write up descriptions/ biographies of them. I have never heard of most of them.

Nezahualcoytl (engineer, poet and king of Texcoco, the Athens of the Americas)

Pacal, the greatest mayan king.

Nezahualcoyotl is a good choice, but personally I would not select Pacal. The epithet 'Pacal the great' was given him by 20th century archaeologists, and was not used by the Mayas themselves, and also Palenque was never as powerful as Calakmul or Tikal. If you want to pick a Mayan leader Sky-Witness of Calakmul would be a better one, he defeated Tikal and made Calakmul the sole superpower of the Mayan world. Other Meso-American nominees could be the Toltec ruler and culture hero Ce Acatl Topiltzin Quetzalcoatl, the founder of Tula and possibily Chichén Itzá, or the Mixtec ruler 8-Deer Jaguar Claw of Tilantongo.

For modern Latin American History Simón Bolívar, the liberator of much of South America, and Benito Juárez, who introduced a liberal, secular and democratic system in Mexico and succesfully managed to repel the French should definately included. A more controversial selection would be Che Guevara. If you want to include him or not depends on your definition of 'great', but if you look just as importance he should definately be considered. It may also be interesting to include one of two populists of the '40 or '50, Vargas (Brazil), Perón (Argentina), Cárdenas (Mexico), Arias (Panama) or Ibáñez (Chile). Though most of their reforms (Cárdenas is an excpeption) did not last very long, they changed the political culture of the countries they ruled and for the first time got the majority of the population involved in politics (and apart from that most of them had very interesting personalities).

-------------"Some argue that atheism partly stems from a failure to fairly and judiciously consider the facts"
"Atheists deny the existence of Satan, while simultaneously doing his work."- Conservapedia

Posted By: Ikki
Date Posted: 03-Mar-2008 at 15:08

OK DsMyers1, i gave the top five before, but not muslim (wich i have changed) and spanish:

Muslims

1. Muhammad - Top 5 (in fact, 1)

2. Saladdin - Top 20

3. Nasser - Around 20

4. Selim I - Beteen 20-30

5. Timur - Over 40

Spanish:

1. Isabel the Catholic - Top 10

2. Phillip II - Top 20

3. Charles III - Between 20-30

4. Charles I and V - Between 20-30

5. Ferdinand III - Hardly into the 100

6. Felipe González - Out of 100

Posted By: Penelope
Date Posted: 03-Mar-2008 at 19:02

DSMyers1 wrote:

Mughaal wrote:

Leaders of what? Leaders with the greatest importance living after them?

As I have said several times, leaders of a single people/nation/tribe. The way to evaluate their leadership is to evaluate the direction the nation was headed before them and to compare that to the direction the nation was headed after them, in terms of real power.

In that case, Peter The Great, Catherine The Great, Darius The Great, and Philioppos II of Macedon all deserve a spot.

Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 03-Mar-2008 at 20:26

DSMyers1 wrote:

5. Douglas MacArthur. WWII and Korea. Top 100 overall?

MacArthur was US president?

rider wrote:

Friedrich I Barbarossa

what exactly did he do for Germany whatsoever? he was neither a good leader nor a great commander, why does everyone get so overhyped over him?

Posted By: Justinian
Date Posted: 03-Mar-2008 at 23:03

Phillip II of Macedon certainly comes to mind, and I may sound like a broken record, but also Alexander the Great. I'll think about it some more and give my list; as well as explaining my reasons for the fantastic father and son combination.

-------------"War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann

Posted By: DSMyers1
Date Posted: 03-Mar-2008 at 23:09

Temujin wrote:

MacArthur was US president?

Where did I say he was a president?! I just had him on a potential list of US leaders!

Penelope wrote:

In that case, Peter The Great, Catherine The Great, Darius The Great, and Philioppos II of Macedon all deserve a spot.

Bingo! Philip II is a perfect example of a great leader that doesn't get enough respect.

I've revised my US leaders:Top United States Leaders1. George Washington. Without
him, the nation is totally different or non-existent. He changed the
course of history. Probably a top 5 overall.2. Abraham Lincoln.
Again, changed the course of history. Do I agree with his policies?
No. But he changed the trajectory of the US, for the stronger. (Of
course, I'm in the South, so I don't like him much...) Probably a top
25 overall.3. Thomas Jefferson. Molded the shape of the US, wrote Declaration, purchased Louisiana. Top 50 overall.4. James Madison. Co-author of the Constitution and president of the war of 1812. Top 100.5. Benjamin Franklin. All-around leader up to Revolution, very influential in US development. Top 100.6. Franklin Roosevelt. WWII! Top 100 overall?7. Ronald Reagan. End of Cold War. Top 100 overall?8. Dwight D. Eisenhower. WWII and President. Top 100 overall?9. Douglas MacArthur. WWII and Korea. Top 100 overall?10. Andrew Jackson. Battle of New Orleans (I know, the war was over...) and a vigorous presidency that molded the future. Top 100 overall?11. Theodore Roosevelt. Turned the US toward imperialism, helped make US a world player. Top 100 overall?

I'd forgotten some of the early leaders that had such a profound impact.

-------------There is no emotion, there is peace.
There is no ignorance, there is knowledge.
There is no passion, there is serenity.
There is no chaos, there is harmony.
There is no death, there is the Force.

Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 04-Mar-2008 at 17:16

For more American leaders I'll add:

Ed Sullivan - He was square but brought in a slew of talent that made Sunday nights a colorful experience in a black and white world.

Bill Gates - Nerdy but his influence is all over the place.

Ben Franklin - The man was a bit of everything. Look him up in wiki. Where would we be without him?

what do you mean? Reagan was perhaps the best president of the USA and one of the greatest leaders ever.

Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 04-Mar-2008 at 19:14

He, according to the researches I've read, established the first inter-community relations, processed state lands to be taken for agriculture and started establishing roads. That's just a tiny bit. Plus, he was the last grand Emperor and one of the last to hold the title 'well' (Friedrich II would be the next and last one).

-------------There is no emotion, there is peace.
There is no ignorance, there is knowledge.
There is no passion, there is serenity.
There is no chaos, there is harmony.
There is no death, there is the Force.

Posted By: Ikki
Date Posted: 04-Mar-2008 at 19:25

Seko wrote:

Ikki wrote:

You americans don't consider Marthin Luther King?

Sure we do. What's your opinion? You think we could read your mind?

Sorry Seko , was so much evident for me that MLK was important for USA that when both you published your opinions i thought (("what the hell guys what are you thinking about!"))

My top american 5:

1. Franklin D. Roosevelt - general, top 5 in fact third

2. John F. Kennedy - no matter the few changes he made, the few time he was president, he was a true leader and his footpring in the world is... a world at all, that we can see the morning and not the nuclear apocalypse. (general 20-30)

3. Abraham Lincoln, the president in front of the most dangerous hour for the nation(general 20-30)

4. Marthin Luther King: what to say here? (general 20-30)

5. Bill Clinton: what a happy country, everyone turn the eyes to the past and can see the shining 90's, the good work. (general between 40-50)

OMG i think i have put in all the lists too much guys for the echelon 20-30

Posted By: ulrich von hutten
Date Posted: 04-Mar-2008 at 19:32

Temujin wrote:

what do you mean? Reagan was perhaps the best president of the USA and one of the greatest leaders ever.

Swabians, i never will understand you?

You mean the same person? This third class actor, who tried to play a role in the movie

" Who the f**k, are these bloody russians ?"?

Greatest leader of what? Of the cutbackers of social politics, leader of the arms build-upers? Leader of the south-america back to colonial status group?

------------- http://imageshack.us">

Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 04-Mar-2008 at 19:32

No sweat ikki!

I like your list but do have a few remarks. Roosevelt, four elections won. Unprecedented, yes. General, no.

Kennedy had on the job Bay of PIgs training and didn't do so well. Yet overall an inspiration and farsighted leader. Bill Clinton. Good debater, sensitive to polls. Lucky to reign in the good times. Still, he did bring down the national debt and gave extra credit to his student interns.

Sorry Seko , was so much evident for me that MLK was important for USA that when both you published your opinions i thought (("what the hell guys what are you thinking about!"))

My top american 5:

1. Franklin D. Roosevelt - general, top 5 in fact third

2. John F. Kennedy - no matter the few changes he made, the few time he was president, he was a true leader and his footpring in the world is... a world at all, that we can see the morning and not the nuclear apocalypse. (general 20-30)

3. Abraham Lincoln, the president in front of the most dangerous hour for the nation(general 20-30)

4. Marthin Luther King: what to say here? (general 20-30)

5. Bill Clinton: what a happy country, everyone turn the eyes to the past and can see the shining 90's, the good work. (general between 40-50)

OMG i think i have put in all the lists too much guys for the echelon 20-30

As a real-life American , here's my response.1. Franklin Roosevelt. America was already at/near the apex of its power; he simply made its power felt in WWII. His handling of the depression, in my opinion, was awful (I don't want to discuss that in this thread). I don't see that the trajectory changed much. The US was powerful before and after him. He simply presided over the peak; I feel his economic policies started pushing us toward the beginning of decline. He didn't make America great; he simply helped break down the isolationism which (to a large extent, I think) helped make America as great as it was. And that is typically the beginning of the decline of a great power (if you read The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers). Nevertheless, so far the US has mostly maintained its position, though it is losing steadily its economic dominance that put it in that position in the first place.2. JFK. He, again, just happens to be leading near the top of the US power. Didn't do a whole lot--he did pull off a peaceful resolution to the Cuban Missile Crisis. That means very little. I don't see him even sniffing this list. I think you, like many, are mistaking presiding over a powerful nation to making that nation great.3. I agree.4. MLK. I agree that he was a great leader, and brought great changes to the US. I may add him to my list, I kinda forgot about him. Nevertheless, he didn't make the US become powerful or substantially change its course in terms of the balance of power in the world.5. Clinton. Again, gets credit for something he had little to do with. This is a trend in the world. Typically the forces that great the great powers happened long before the people who get credit. Honestly, I think he and others that increase social spending decrease the nation's power--government is more inefficient at distributing money than the free market, and takes a huge chunk out of the GNP. More government compared to production = sooner or later decline. Again, Rise and Fall of the Great Powers.

BTW, the saying, at least where I live, is "What can I say?" not "What to say here?."

what do you mean? Reagan was perhaps the best president of the USA and one of the greatest leaders ever.

Swabians, i never will understand you?

You mean the same person? This third class actor, who tried to play a role in the movie

" Who the f**k, are these bloody russians ?"?

Greatest leader of what? Of the cutbackers of social politics, leader of the arms build-upers? Leader of the south-america back to colonial status group?

Reagan purposefully upped the ante in the arms race in order to bring down the Russian economy. It was a calculated gamble that worked amazingly. He knew what he was doing; he successfully brought down one of the greatest powers in history with some bogus defense thing called the "Strategic Defense Initiative". The American public could see how stupid the plan was, how much of a money drain it was. But the thing is--it was supposed to be a money drain! The idea was to simply pit the US economy vs. the USSR economy because he knew the US would win that. The SDI was a facade. It was an elegant plan that worked to perfection. Likely better than Reagan would have hoped!

He did decrease the US power worldwide relative to the rest of the world by spending so much money uselessly. However, he widened the gap between the US and the field in the short term by bringing down the USSR, the prime competitor, and since the SDI and such spending could be cut back later, essentially didn't lose the US much at all by using that strategy. And most everyone is happy the USSR is no more!

Yeap. Reagan got a very smart plan with the SDI. However, I am afraid he believed it was going to work .

With respect to the best American president, I admire Jefferson and Roosevelt, and I dissagree with the case of Lincoln. That was a very bloody war that perhaps a more skillful President could have avoided or stopped.

In Amerindian figures, my favorite from the U.S. is Crazy horse, that got a monument bigger than any president

-------------"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)

Posted By: Penelope
Date Posted: 05-Mar-2008 at 01:44

Justinian wrote:

Phillip II of Macedon certainly comes to mind

Yes, after ascending the throne, he found his kingdom virtually on the brink of collapse, and his neighbours, hovering like vultures poised to put an end to its existence. Not to mention the internal strife from pretenders who wanted to usurp the throne for themselves as well. Philioppos, at the tender age of 21, demonstrated his abilities, not only as a competent ruler, but as a skillful diplomat, many even consider him to have been one of the most skillful diplomats in history. In a little more than a year, he had crushed all pretenders, firmly establishing himself on the throne, pushed back the Paonians, and went on to bribe the kings of Illyria and Thrace in exchange for peace, so as to "buy" enough time to continue to implement his reforms, and reorganize the kingdom.

Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 05-Mar-2008 at 02:28

Mixcoatl wrote:

pinguin wrote:

From pre Hispanic Mexico:

Nezahualcoytl (engineer, poet and king of Texcoco, the Athens of the Americas)

Pacal, the greatest mayan king.

Nezahualcoyotl is a good choice, but personally I would not select Pacal. The epithet 'Pacal the great' was given him by 20th century archaeologists, and was not used by the Mayas themselves, and also Palenque was never as powerful as Calakmul or Tikal. If you want to pick a Mayan leader Sky-Witness of Calakmul would be a better one, he defeated Tikal and made Calakmul the sole superpower of the Mayan world. Other Meso-American nominees could be the Toltec ruler and culture hero Ce Acatl Topiltzin Quetzalcoatl, the founder of Tula and possibily Chichén Itzá, or the Mixtec ruler 8-Deer Jaguar Claw of Tilantongo.

Great comment! Thanks. I will look for those fellows. If you wish to post something detailed about them in the section "history of the Americas" I will thank you.

Mixcoatl wrote:

For modern Latin American History Simón Bolívar, the liberator of much of South America, and Benito Juárez, who introduced a liberal, secular and democratic system in Mexico and succesfully managed to repel the French should definately included. A more controversial selection would be Che Guevara. If you want to include him or not depends on your definition of 'great', but if you look just as importance he should definately be considered. It may also be interesting to include one of two populists of the '40 or '50, Vargas (Brazil), Perón (Argentina), Cárdenas (Mexico), Arias (Panama) or Ibáñez (Chile). Though most of their reforms (Cárdenas is an excpeption) did not last very long, they changed the political culture of the countries they ruled and for the first time got the majority of the population involved in politics (and apart from that most of them had very interesting personalities).

Yes, modern Latin America is a lot more controversial. It is hard to pick the best between many. In the case of my country, I would not select Ibañez at all. Perhaps a Father Hurtado (the founding of a charity organization) or Dr. Monckeberg (the man that fought against infantile desnutrition) would be bigger figures than him. Allende did badly as president and his glory came from the fact he didn't gave up.

-------------"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)

Posted By: Justinian
Date Posted: 05-Mar-2008 at 06:55

Penelope wrote:

Justinian wrote:

Phillip II of Macedon certainly comes to mind

Yes, after ascending the throne, he found his kingdom virtually on the brink of collapse, and his neighbours, hovering like vultures poised to put an end to its existence. Not to mention the internal strife from pretenders who wanted to usurp the throne for themselves as well. Philioppos, at the tender age of 21, demonstrated his abilities, not only as a competent ruler, but as a skillful diplomat, many even consider him to have been one of the most skillful diplomats in history. In a little more than a year, he had crushed all pretenders, firmly establishing himself on the throne, pushed back the Paonians, and went on to bribe the kings of Illyria and Thrace in exchange for peace, so as to "buy" enough time to continue to implement his reforms, and reorganize the kingdom.

Totally agree, he often is overshadowed because of who his son is, but he was a gifted individual, no doubts there. His manipulation/take over of the greeks is just amazing to read about.

-------------"War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann

Posted By: DSMyers1
Date Posted: 08-Mar-2008 at 17:14

I'm working on a numerical rating system to rank the leaders; so far it seems to be working well. I have put together a list that includes a good portion of the significant nations, though I haven't rated all of the different leaders. Here is a listing of the leaders I have collected so far, sorted by nation:

Obviously, I have many, many nations/peoples to go and not all of those above are comprehensive. I was just starting in the ancient times and preparing to work forward. Anyway, the top 40 from just those nations looks like this, using the numerical method:

What is the criteria which makes a leader great of not? Also how did you judge what a leader is, Moshe Dayan was not a leader of Israel he was involved in the millitary. Maccabeus and Joshua are Jewish heroes, not necessarilly "leaders", there are similar examples of national heroes for many nations. William Pitt was sucessful however, I don't see how he can be regarded one of the top 100 leaders in history. Sir Francis Drake was answerable to Queen Elizabeth, in what sense was he a leader?

Is it just their martial tendencies? or also their cultural impact, level of justic and law, patronage of the arts, architectural projects...

------------- “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.”
Albert Pine

Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 08-Mar-2008 at 18:07

No Gandi? Lenin? Suleyman the Magnificent?

------------- “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.”
Albert Pine

Posted By: DSMyers1
Date Posted: 08-Mar-2008 at 18:26

Bulldog wrote:

No Gandi? Lenin? Suleyman the Magnificent?

You haven't read this thread, Bulldog...

In response to your previous post, a leader can be in any position, as long as they strengthen their nation by their actions. The evaluation criteria has been discussed at length on the first page or two--essentially, one looks at the nation before and after the leader's life/leadership time (that's about 75%) and then you look at what heights the leader led the nation to in his life (that's about 25%).

As clearly stated in my last two posts, I haven't even gotten to half of the nations of note in collecting leaders yet...thus the absences you mention.

------------- “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.”
Albert Pine

Posted By: Justinian
Date Posted: 09-Mar-2008 at 00:09

Based on your ranking where is Alexander the Great? I would think he would be at the top for sure. I also think Louis XI should be considered. He was really the one to build the foundations for modern france: recover from the Hundred years war, foreign policy etc. etc.

-------------"War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann

Posted By: Panther
Date Posted: 09-Mar-2008 at 01:34

pinguin wrote:

With respect to the best American president, I admire Jefferson and Roosevelt, and I dissagree with the case of Lincoln. That was a very bloody war that perhaps a more skillful President could have avoided or stopped.

I disagree with your opinion pinguin. A more skillful politican or not being able too avoid the war, i rather extremely doubt it! Lincoln's election was the spark that finally lit the flames of the Civil War, it was a long time in coming! The only way he probably could have avoided the war, was probably by putting a bullet in his brain shortly after he took office? Even then quite a few wouldn't be appeased with that gesture!

In Amerindian figures, my favorite from the U.S. is Crazy horse, that got a monument bigger than any president

I'm rather partial too Quanah Parker myself.

Posted By: DSMyers1
Date Posted: 09-Mar-2008 at 02:04

Justinian wrote:

Based on your ranking where is Alexander the Great? I would think he would be at the top for sure. I also think Louis XI should be considered. He was really the one to build the foundations for modern france: recover from the Hundred years war, foreign policy etc. etc.

Alexander took a Significant Power (Macedonia) to The Greatest Power in the World. That's not quite as big a step as his father took (Nobody to Great Power) and his work didn't last past his death. Since a large part of my decision is based on the trajectory of the nation, he loses some points for its short duration.

I will look into Louis XI. I'm not an expert on French Monarchs...

Oh--and you can't accuse me of bias against Alexander--he's number 1 on the Top 100 Generals thread

DsMyers1, i think that placing Philip II in the top 10 was very fair and accurate, and i also agree that Alexander The Great should not be on the list. He may have been the greatest conqueror, but he wasnt the greatest of administrators. He simply inherited Macedonia, a nation that Philip had shaped and molded into the most powerful nation on earth. So on this rare occasion in forum history, it is the Father who will shine, not the son.

Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 09-Mar-2008 at 18:57

Well said Penelope! In any case, the Persian empire was in shamles by the time that Alexander III "the great" marched across it, so was Greece - Xenophon's "the Persian expedition" is testimony to this. Moreover, the Macedonian phalanx had been formed by Philip II, but I must point out here that it's often been said that Alexander never won one of his battles with his phalanx, it was mainly his cavalry and other skirmishers who dealt the killer blow, so we can't take Philip II's military ingeunity into the question - I would mainly put his ability to internal secure Macedon as his key trait.

What would you say about Charles V? By all accounts, his ability to rule was very limited, but despite opposition he managed to defeat the Munster rebels at Frankhausen, the French and their allies at Pavia, and the Schmakaldic league at Muhlburg. Moreover, he manged to keep this now crumbling empire on it's toes for the Hapsburg-Valois wars, and successfully managed to influence the pope enough to get him to condemn the French for

their alliance with the Ottoman empire (when in actuallity, Clement VII was pleased of any assistance the French could give to prevent Italy being overrun by Hapsburg client states)

and preventing Henry VIII to divorce from Katherine of Aragon. I know that this was due to the sack of Rome, which he didn't actually engineer himself, but he did manage to turn the situation to his advantage. It seems he just suffered from very bad luck more than anything - he managed to do so much for this crumbling state, which is ironic considering that the Haspburg sucession made him one of the most powerful rulers that Europe had ever seen.

-------------"Don't raise your voice - we all know how lovely it is!"
Triano, in "Mosterella" by Plautus! Read it...now!

Posted By: Tore The Dog
Date Posted: 09-Mar-2008 at 19:18

Axel Oxenstierna This man is the major factor to Swedish Empire in 1600 cetury , by people forgotten , by historians , a national hero.

Obviously, I have many, many nations/peoples to go and not all of those above are comprehensive. I was just starting in the ancient times and preparing to work forward. Anyway, the top 40 from just those nations looks like this, using the numerical method:

Rank

Name

Country

1

Ghengis Khan

Mongols

2

Mohammed

Arabs

3

George Washington

United States

4

Sargon

Akkad

5

Cyrus the Great

Persia

6

Queen Elizabeth I

England

7

Augustus Caesar

Rome

8

Charlemagne

France

9

Philip II

Macedonia

10

Philip Augustus

France

11

Winston Churchill

England

12

Peter the Great

Russia

13

Louis XIV

France

14

King Alfred the Great

England

15

Moses

Israel

16

Ivan I

Russia

17

Cardinal Richelieu

France

18

Hammurabi

Babylon

19

David

Israel

20

Sir Francis Drake

England

21

Philip the Good

Burgundy

22

Scipio Africanus

Rome

23

Solon

Greece

24

Chandragupta Maurya

India

25

Thutmose III

Egypt

26

Abraham Lincoln

United States

27

Epaminondas

Greece

28

James Madison

United States

29

Jean d'Arc

France

30

Charles VII

France

31

Robert Clive

England

32

Oliver Cromwell

England

33

John Churchill, Duke of Marlborough

England

34

Menes/Narmur

Egypt

35

Julius Caesar

Rome

36

William Pitt the Elder

England

37

Joshua

Israel

38

Edward III

England

39

Thomas Jefferson

United States

40

Benjamin Franklin

United States

I am afraid, a ranking that includes Francis Drake and Chandragupta Maurya (who is?) but that purposely excludes Jesus, Saint Paul, Columbus, Queen Isabel of Spain and all Amerindian leaders is, in my oppinion, not only extremelly biassed but worthless

With respect to Latin Americans outside rankings, I don't get concerned at all. We are accustommed to be ignored, always

-------------"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)

Posted By: Panther
Date Posted: 10-Mar-2008 at 01:01

pinguin wrote:

With respect to Latin Americans outside rankings, I don't get concerned at all. We are accustommed to be ignored, always

Latin who...? Do they even exist?

( ***cough, cough*** Ahem...)

Posted By: DSMyers1
Date Posted: 10-Mar-2008 at 11:27

Yes, yes Panther, Pinguin. I know. As I've said, that list of 40 is of less than half of the nations in history. I was starting with the nations I'd already done. I haven't worked on those you mentioned, yet, Pinguin. Though, as I've mentioned, I'm not going to put Jesus on the list as he was not the leader of a single nation.

Based on your ranking where is Alexander the Great? I would think he would be at the top for sure. I also think Louis XI should be considered. He was really the one to build the foundations for modern france: recover from the Hundred years war, foreign policy etc. etc.

Alexander took a Significant Power (Macedonia) to The Greatest Power in the World. That's not quite as big a step as his father took (Nobody to Great Power) and his work didn't last past his death. Since a large part of my decision is based on the trajectory of the nation, he loses some points for its short duration.

I will look into Louis XI. I'm not an expert on French Monarchs...

Oh--and you can't accuse me of bias against Alexander--he's number 1 on the Top 100 Generals thread

Okay, I see where you're coming from. I'd point out the Macedonian successor states lasted for hundreds of years; and were formed from Alexander's conquests, without him they don't exist. But I'll leave it at that, and you're right I can't complain about number 1 on the top 100 generals thread.

-------------"War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann

Posted By: DSMyers1
Date Posted: 11-Mar-2008 at 11:33

Any body who wants to help out with the quantifying of leaders, feel free to do so. Read the Formula PDF I put together a few posts back. Here is an example leader with the numbers included:

Name

Country

Before

After

Duration

High Point

Impact

Opposition

Rating

Ghengis Khan

Mongols

0

5

4

5

4

4

64.0

The idea is that this is a fairly objective approach, and thus the leaders from many eras can be compared. Copied from the Formula Sheet, here are what the numerical ratings correspond to:

Levels

Power/Trajectory

Duration (at trajectory after
leader or 1 worse)

0

Downward,
Collapsing, Non-existent (Mongol Tribes @ 1000AD)

Collapses
at Death (Alexander the Great)

1

MinorState or
Deteriorating Larger (Israel
before conquest of Canaan)

Collapses
within 25 years (Philip the Good)

2

MediumState w/o much
Power (France
before Jean d'Arc)

Collapses
within 50 years (Sargon of Akkad?)

3

Significant
Power (US after Washington)

Collapses
within 100 years (Winston Churchill—present)

4

Great
Power (England before Pitt
and Wellington)

Collapses
within 200 years (Louis XIV)

5

Greatest
in World (Persia
after Cyrus)

200+
(George Washington)

Levels

Impact of Leader

Opposition Caliber

0

0% It
really wasn't them (Means rating of 0)

Opposition?
(Why on list?)

1

20% They
helped (Insignificant leader—maybe Henry Knox)

Fragmentary
(Not sure of an example)

2

40% A
significant leader (Thomas Jefferson)

Small
Powers (Theodore Roosevelt)

3

60% Most
important in change (Charles VII of France)

Significant
Powers (Abraham Lincoln)

4

80%
Dominant leader, with a little help (Genghis Khan)

Great
Powers (Cardinal Richelieu)

5

100% Him
and him alone (Philip II of Macedon)

Greatest
Power/Great Coalition (Queen Elizabeth I)

I tried to give examples of who would be rated at each number for each of the 4 scales of 0 to 5, but I'm not sure I got them all right--I did them off the top of my head.

Those ratings are then plugged into the formula to give an overall rating that goes from 0 to 100. I suspect Genghis Khan's 64 may be hard to beat, though Mohammed was at 62 and I may tweak the values or the formula some time. Third place thus far was George Washington at 46, then Sargon at 44 and Cyrus at 43.

I would REALLY appreciate people picking a nation and rating its leaders based on that criteria above, like the example for Ghengis Khan!

I am pretty busy and only have time to work on this much on the weekends. This shouldn't be that hard to do... If you don't want to calculate the overall rating formula, just give the values in the various categories to me and I'll plug them into my spreadsheet.

Von Ranke would be happy. Seems we are doing things very empirically...

-------------

Posted By: Julius Augustus
Date Posted: 21-Mar-2008 at 12:04

Aster Thrax Eupator wrote:

Well said Penelope! In any case, the Persian empire was in shamles by the time that Alexander III "the great" marched across it, so was Greece - Xenophon's "the Persian expedition" is testimony to this. Moreover, the Macedonian phalanx had been formed by Philip II, but I must point out here that it's often been said that Alexander never won one of his battles with his phalanx, it was mainly his cavalry and other skirmishers who dealt the killer blow, so we can't take Philip II's military ingeunity into the question - I would mainly put his ability to internal secure Macedon as his key trait.

I couldnt agree more, the father was the man behind the son./

Posted By: DSMyers1
Date Posted: 15-Apr-2008 at 18:26

I wanted to show that I am making progress on this list, slowly but surely. I've collected a list of just about every nation of note and am going through their history looking for leaders of note. I've also slightly modified the formula I'm using as a starting point ranking system. Once everybody has been listed, then we will switch from a numerical system to a discussion of those rankings and modifications without the numerical system.

So here's the top 50 at the moment (MANY IMPORTANT LEADERS NOT EVALUATED YET):

Ds, why is Alex there? he wasnt a good leader, he was a good general, his people mutinied at least twice, he couldnt create a proper way of accession, his sons were killed after his death, his lasting effect on governance is zero even to today's world, heck I think Mithradates had more of an effect on today's world that he did in regards to governance, the guy should never be there.

good list except for that, Alex should never be in a list of leaders, by the way, looks like you havent gone through the Chinese world, Qi isnt in there yet.

Posted By: Knights
Date Posted: 16-Apr-2008 at 03:20

It is looking good I must say. I don't know if I'd place Khalid that high, but I'm not fussed. If we are looking for a Byzantine, then Alexios Komnenos would get my vote - I'd put him fairly high up on the list, considering the Komnenian restoration which he invoked, and the wide ranging political, diplomatic, cultural and militaristic success of his. It's up to you, and I can provide more information if you are not convinced.

Regards,

- Knights -

-------------

Posted By: DSMyers1
Date Posted: 16-Apr-2008 at 14:14

Julius Augustus wrote:

Ds, why is Alex there? he wasnt a good leader, he was a good general, his people mutinied at least twice, he couldnt create a proper way of accession, his sons were killed after his death, his lasting effect on governance is zero even to today's world, heck I think Mithradates had more of an effect on today's world that he did in regards to governance,the guy should never be there.

good list except for that, Alex should never be in a list of leaders, by the way, looks like you havent gone through the Chinese world, Qi isnt in there yet.

Well, right now, I just go through and numerically rate several categories and whatever their ranking is comes out of a formula.Remember, this is based on trajectory/power before and after.Here is what I have for Alexander (I may be off a little):

Before

After

Duration

High Point

Impact

Opposition

Rating

3

5

0

5

5

4

25.11

So what this means is--the nation was a medium power or a shaken great power at his come to power (I consider it a shaken great power that without a good leader could quickly have fallen off).Afterwards, it was the greatest power in the world.Duration is 0, which means it collapsed at death.High point, obviously, is #1 in world.Impact means that it was all his doing, this increase from 3 to 5.Perhaps I should lower that to 4, but I'm not sure.Opposition was a "great power" not the greatest power in the world.

For comparison, look at the top 10:

Rank

Name

Before

After

Duration

High Point

Impact

Opposition

Rating

1

Ghengis Khan

1

5

4

5

4

4

54.10

2

Mohammed

0

4

5

4

5

2

51.81

3

George Washington

0

3

5

3

4

5

46.14

4

Augustus Caesar

3

5

5

5

5

4

44.44

5

Khālid ibn al-Walīd

1

5

5

5

3

4

44.44

6

Cyrus the Great

2

5

4

5

4

4

43.28

7

Charlemagne

2

5

2

5

5

3

38.32

8

Sargon

2

5

2

5

5

3

38.32

9

Queen Elizabeth I

2

4

5

4

4

5

37.30

10

Philip II

1

4

1

4

5

4

36.03

Note Philip II--left the nation a 4, but his assassination dropped it to a shaken great power, a 3.Khalid and Augustus are actually tied (I'll add a tiebreaker later).Augustus gets the nod there.The tough part with Khalid is the impact rating.3 means he was a predominant factor.Note I have him starting a little after Mohammad--essentially I'm trying to distinguish when he and Mohammad were "leaders."

If anyone wants to rate some leaders, the paper discussing how to is a couple of pages back.I wouldn't mind some help.

I haven't rated China, I haven't rated Byzantium.Those are the two biggest areas left untouched at the moment, I think.

good explanation, Alex might be dropping after the other leaders added. In regards with Khalid he was a good general but as a leader he still answered to the caliph, Umar, Abu Bakr. the caliphate fell after two hundred years I believe replaced by the Abbasid one.

Posted By: DSMyers1
Date Posted: 16-Apr-2008 at 15:28

Julius Augustus wrote:

good explanation, Alex might be dropping after the other leaders added. In regards with Khalid he was a good general but as a leader he still answered to the caliph, Umar, Abu Bakr. the caliphate fell after two hundred years I believe replaced by the Abbasid one.

Oh, Alexander will definitely be dropping as more are added. Right now, he's right behind Thutmose III, Ahmad Shah Durrani, and Abraham Lincoln. I'm sure there's more than 30 better than them.

Good catch on the duration for Khalid ibn al-Walid. I think, as a leader, his importance was more than Umar (during whose leadership many of the expansions were made). Had he lost some of those battles, who knows what would have happened. I feel that the elevation of their state from level 4 (great power) to 5 (greatest in the world) was on Khalid's shoulders almost exclusively (the earlier growth not so much so, thus the impact rating of 3).

After some slight modifications to the formula to emphasize personal impact more, the top 10 looks like:

Well I am biased but I think that prophet Muhammad (PBUH) has much more impact on the world as we live in it today than Genghis khan. Yes, he might not have created an empire but his companions did. Arabs were nothing before him and were everything after him. As for Genghis khan, 100 years after his death his empire was no more though it did empact history by distroying the Islamic world. Paul the apostle also was a top world leader in my opinion, he changed Christianinty from a reformation of Judaism into a religion of its own and if it were not for him, europe would have been a much different place. One leader I didn't see though he also deserves to be in the top 5 is Peter the great. This guy alone made Russia great not in his life time but in the times of his successors.

AL-Jassas

Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 17-Apr-2008 at 23:13

I think Mehmed the Conqueror or Suleyman the Magnificent deserve a mention.

------------- “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.”
Albert Pine

Posted By: DSMyers1
Date Posted: 17-Apr-2008 at 23:53

Al Jassas wrote:

Hello to you all

Well I am biased but I think that prophet Muhammad (PBUH) has much
more impact on the world as we live in it today than Genghis khan. Yes,
he might not have created an empire but his companions did. Arabs were
nothing before him and were everything after him. As for Genghis khan,
100 years after his death his empire was no more though it did empact
history by distroying the Islamic world. Paul the apostle also was a
top world leader in my opinion, he changed Christianinty from a
reformation of Judaism into a religion of its own and if it were not
for him, europe would have been a much different place. One leader I
didn't see though he also deserves to be in the top 5 is Peter the
great. This guy alone made Russia great not in his life time but in the
times of his successors.

AL-Jassas

I see where you're coming from, but this isn't a ranking of impact on
the world we live in today. It is a ranking based on how they
changed/improved the power of their nation.

I'm not putting in leaders that didn't lead a specific tribe/people/nation.

I haven't finished putting in all of the leaders yet--I haven't put in
Chinese, Ottoman, Russian, German..... Lots of leaders yet to go.

After consideration, I think I'm going to add in a small adjustment factor rating the leaders on whether they effected the rest of the world for good or for evil and whether they were in the right in their leading their people/nation to power. What I mean is--leaders of independence movements or defensive wars or great lawgivers that didn't use brutal means get a bonus; brutal blood-thirsty tyrants get a penalty. I just didn't like ending up with Genghis Khan as the greatest leader--he led his nation to power, surely, but that isn't all there is to being a great leader.

Obviously, such ratings will be a bit more subjective than I'd like. I'll still use the 0 to 5 scale. I'll try to consider whether they were in the right in a war, whether they were leading for independence, whether the people subject to them benefitted for their rule, and whether they killed people unnecessarily. Basically, here's what I see:

0 would be Genghis, Timur, Hitler, Stalin--those of that sort. Those that the world thinks of and shudders.

1 would be second-class blood thirsty tyrants and conquerors. They had no right to the conquest, they killed people unnecissarily, but they weren't Hitler. Alexander comes to mind.

2 would be basic conquerors--those who conquerored without a cause, but weren't bloodthirsty about it. Perhaps Sargon of Akkad (a bit fuzzy there) or maybe Mohammed.

3 would be exceptionally good conqueors that benefitted those they conquerored, leaders of independence movements that used questionable (=bloody) methods, leaders who strengthened their nation without conquest, etc. Examples could be Cyrus the Great, Peter the Great, perhaps Hammurabi...

4 would be leaders defending their nation and/or weak nations, leaders of independence movements, etc. These leaders were on the "good guys" side. Examples could be Elizabeth I, Skanderbeg.

5 would be "good guys" defending their people against oppression, leading independence movements honorably, with good methods, etc. The best of the best. This could include George Washington, King Alfred the Great, perhaps Winston Churchill... There aren't that many.

Adding this factor opens me up for more criticism, but this numerical system is just the foundation for the final list rather than the final list itself.

So here is what the top 10 look like after adding this "Good/Bad" factor:

Even though Central Asia did in fact blossom under the reign of King Timur, the majority of the lands that he conquered didnt blossom, becuase of the simple fact that he had refused to leave any forms of government apparatuses in the lands after he conquered them. It was as if he wanted them to revolt, so that he could have an excuse to return and reconquer them.

ds I think Al jassas is right, the Prophet actually had more of an impact than most people think, his organization of the saudi arab tribes lead to one of the largest turnarounds in history, right now, his influence reaches from Afghanistan to the United States. even the khnate of the mongols were influenced so greatly by the prophet that they decided to have a war with each other because of it.

I heard of a report there are 100 million chinese muslims, is this true?

I agree on Cyrus, its hard to crack the messiah list of the jews specially if you are a gentile. plus he made a bunch of nomads into conquerors

Posted By: Knights
Date Posted: 21-Apr-2008 at 09:16

I personally don't agree with Washington at number 1. Someone like Augustus had a larger immediate impact, and a far more enormous lasting impact. Washington was a great leader, just not the greatest leader in history. Robert the Bruce also doesn't deserve his position in my opinion.

Plus, what's up with the "good/bad" rating? This goes a step further than opinions, and delves into morals. I don't think we can judge as moralists. Just because Genghis Khan may have massacred many, many people, may not degrade his ability as a leader.

If you completely disagree, just say so - it's okay.

Regards,

- Knights -

-------------

Posted By: DSMyers1
Date Posted: 21-Apr-2008 at 12:43

Knights wrote:

I personally don't agree with Washington at number 1. Someone like Augustus had a larger immediate impact, and a far more enormous lasting impact. Washington was a great leader, just not the greatest leader in history. Robert the Bruce also doesn't deserve his position in my opinion.

Plus, what's up with the "good/bad" rating? This goes a step further than opinions, and delves into morals. I don't think we can judge as moralists. Just because Genghis Khan may have massacred many, many people, may not degrade his ability as a leader.

If you completely disagree, just say so - it's okay.

Regards,

- Knights -

These numerical rankings are just a ground work to start the process--so I don't have to judge them all first. After getting all of the significant leaders of history rated I'm going to switch over to the process used for the generals.

I know the good/bad is somewhat subjective (not too much, though) but here's why I'm using it--if I were to judge the great leaders of history, I do take into account if they were slaughtering millions or were doing their leadership the right way. If I look at George Washington or Genghis Khan, I recognize that Genghis Khan took his nation to perhaps greater power, or a trajectory for greater power (though that could be debated). However, I just don't think him quite as great a leader because of the terrible impact on the other groups/people.

Essentially, I think that a truly top leader would have a good impact on more than just his own nation/tribe/people. That is what the Good/Bad is actually judging. What was this ruler's impact on "other peoples" and did the leader have justification for leading his nation in the way he did. For example, this is where leaders of independence movements get a small bump up. Actually, for the majority of the leaders there is no significant impact from that rating factor--a 5 gives a +25% and a 0 -25%, but most are 2s and 3s.

I know it is a bit ephemeral, but I think to get the initial list in good shape I have to include that somehow. It's not really a moral factor, but it was hard to think of a title. A truly great leader strengthens his nation/people for a cause, when they were oppressed or desperately in need of a leader, and does it without destroying other peoples; a lesser leader just strengthens his nation or people by trodding on other nations for personal glory and gain.

As for Augustus vs. George Washington, I strongly disagree. I think that some other leader could have done what Augustus did--it is not quite so exceptional. He did it better than most would have, setting Rome on more solid footing. But I think George Washington did a more difficult job and did it better. Some others could have won the war, but he was essential in setting up our government the way he did--there are very few who would not have taken the opportunity to grasp the power far more firmly than he did.

Well I like Narses over Belisarius because he had to bail him out of Italy because Belisarius could not conquer the peninsula. Narses is a real interesting figure in Byzantine history and should be near or above Belisarius.

-------------Sun Tzu

All warfare is based on deception - Sun Tzu

Posted By: DSMyers1
Date Posted: 25-Apr-2008 at 15:24

New version of the list with the Buyids and Byzantines added. The Byzantines took a while to figure out!

After visiting this link, i think that most of you would agree that Emperor Haile Selassie l, of Ethiopia, deserves to be in the top 10, or at least in the top 20. It's kinda hard to believe that no one even mentioned him. http://www.answers.com/topic/haile-selassie - http://www.answers.com/topic/haile-selassie

by the way I believe Mithradates deserves a crack at the top ten, removing the hellinistic control in Iran and then making the Parthians rulers of the lands deserves a nod same goes with Ardhashir

Posted By: Knights
Date Posted: 26-Apr-2008 at 11:53

DSMyers1 wrote:

New version of the list with the Buyids and Byzantines added. The Byzantines took a while to figure out!

Added:

115

'Imad al-Daula

Buyid

149

Rukn al-Daula

Buyid

184

Mu'izz al-Daula

Buyid

15

Heraclius

Byzantine

46

Justinian I

Byzantine

53

John II Komnenos

Byzantine

59

Alexios I Komnenos

Byzantine

72

Basil II

Byzantine

79

Nikephoros II Phokas

Byzantine

101

Leo III the Isaurian

Byzantine

113

Maurice

Byzantine

114

Belisarius

Byzantine

119

Basil I the Macedonian

Byzantine

140

Anastasius I

Byzantine

153

Romanos I

Byzantine

163

Narses

Byzantine

164

John I Tzimiskes

Byzantine

Hey Myers.

A nice portion of Byzantines you've added to the list, I see. I do have a comments about the relative ranks though. In my personal opinion, Alexios was the greatest Byzantine Emperor (though I'm torn between him and Herakleios), and is worthy of the at least the Top 20. He is definitely superior to his successor John the Beautiful, as well as Justinian (who are both ahead of him on the list). Justinian undertook some hefty things, a lot of which were very successful, but others which cost the empire dearly. I don't mind if it doesn't sway your thoughts, but here is my proposed relative top 3 of the Byzantines you have selected:

After this would be John Tzmiskes, John the Beautiful and Justinian, in no particular order.

My priority above all, however, is to see the drastic raise of Alexios, above both John II and Justinian (above Herakleios would be a bonus ).

Regards,

- Knights -

-------------

Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 26-Apr-2008 at 12:27

Sun Tzu wrote:

Well I like Narses over Belisarius because he had to bail him out of Italy because Belisarius could not conquer the peninsula. Narses is a real interesting figure in Byzantine history and should be near or above Belisarius.

Hi Sun Tzu,

I must strongly disagree with you here.

Belisarius did conquer the entire Italian peninsula (I do acknowledge some Gothic towns north of the Po were not subdued when Justinian recalled him), and he did it in much less time than Narses (only a few years) and with far fewer troops. He accomplished his mission with a flambouyance and resourcefulness that contrasted with the mathmatical precision of the old Armenian eunuch.

Problem was that Justinian got jeolous and recalled him to the east. With Belisarius gone without having been given the chance to consolidate his conquests, Italy soon suffered the counter-attack of Totila.

Belisarius was returned to Italy with only a few thousand troops, not nearly enough to achieve his mission of reconquering Italy from many tens of thousands of Goths. Narses was later dispatched with over 20,000. He also had the total confidence of Emperor Justinian, giving him the critical authority and blank cheque to conduct operations as he saw fit.

Narses didn't bail out Belisarius, he simply accomplished what Belisarius had already done with somewhat less resources the first time, and what Belisarius had failed at with vastly less resources the second time.

-------------It is not the challenges a people face which define who they are, but rather the way in which they respond to those challenges.

Posted By: DSMyers1
Date Posted: 26-Apr-2008 at 14:14

Knights wrote:

DSMyers1 wrote:

New version of the list with the Buyids and Byzantines added. The Byzantines took a while to figure out!

Added:

15

Heraclius

Byzantine

46

Justinian I

Byzantine

53

John II Komnenos

Byzantine

59

Alexios I Komnenos

Byzantine

72

Basil II

Byzantine

79

Nikephoros II Phokas

Byzantine

101

Leo III the Isaurian

Byzantine

113

Maurice

Byzantine

114

Belisarius

Byzantine

119

Basil I the Macedonian

Byzantine

140

Anastasius I

Byzantine

153

Romanos I

Byzantine

163

Narses

Byzantine

164

John I Tzimiskes

Byzantine

Hey Myers.

A nice portion of Byzantines you've added to the list, I see. I do have a comments about the relative ranks though. In my personal opinion, Alexios was the greatest Byzantine Emperor (though I'm torn between him and Herakleios), and is worthy of the at least the Top 20. He is definitely superior to his successor John the Beautiful, as well as Justinian (who are both ahead of him on the list). Justinian undertook some hefty things, a lot of which were very successful, but others which cost the empire dearly. I don't mind if it doesn't sway your thoughts, but here is my proposed relative top 3 of the Byzantines you have selected:

After this would be John Tzmiskes, John the Beautiful and Justinian, in no particular order.

My priority above all, however, is to see the drastic raise of Alexios, above both John II and Justinian (above Herakleios would be a bonus ).

Regards,

- Knights -

Good feedback there, Knights. I'm not exactly an expert on Byzantium. I'm reevaluating my rankings. Alexios will move up to #2. I don't like Tzmiskes near that high, however. The empire was already strong when he took over; I don't see that he did that much for the empire besides using that strength to expand. I'm not going to put him in the top 100, I think. He has the problem of being the middle of 3 great emperors--I just don't feel that he himself did that much for the empire.

Ds there is something that doesnt make sense to me, I rank Khalid as one of the greatest generals to ever set foot in the world but his overall impact to governance wasnt as much as either of the caliphs he served, Abu Bakr or Umar.

Posted By: DSMyers1
Date Posted: 26-Apr-2008 at 20:11

Julius Augustus wrote:

Ds there is something that doesnt make sense to me, I rank Khalid as one of the greatest generals to ever set foot in the world but his overall impact to governance wasnt as much as either of the caliphs he served, Abu Bakr or Umar.

I think his overall impact to the course of the Arab/Moslem advance was greater than either of theirs. If he had lost several of the battles that he won--well, I just don't know if the Arab/Moslems could have sustained the losses and still advanced anywhere near as far or as fast. I think those two early caliphs, though great leaders, weren't better than many other leaders who could have done just as well in their place.

Good feedback there, Knights. I'm not exactly an expert on Byzantium. I'm reevaluating my rankings. Alexios will move up to #2. I don't like Tzmiskes near that high, however. The empire was already strong when he took over; I don't see that he did that much for the empire besides using that strength to expand. I'm not going to put him in the top 100, I think. He has the problem of being the middle of 3 great emperors--I just don't feel that he himself did that much for the empire.

After reevaluating:

16

Heraclius

575

641

Byzantine

30.68

27

Alexios I Komnenos

1048

1118

Byzantine

27.52

53

John II Komnenos

1087

1143

Byzantine

22.09

70

Justinian I

482

565

Byzantine

20.51

74

Basil II

958

1025

Byzantine

20.30

81

Nikephoros II Phokas

912

969

Byzantine

19.34

101

Leo III the Isaurian

685

741

Byzantine

16.90

113

Maurice

539

602

Byzantine

15.15

114

Belisarius

505

565

Byzantine

15.05

119

Basil I the
Macedonian

811

886

Byzantine

14.69

140

Anastasius I

430

518

Byzantine

12.41

145

John I Tzimiskes

925

976

Byzantine

11.87

154

Romanos I

870

944

Byzantine

10.55

164

Narses

478

573

Byzantine

9.52

Thanks DSMyers. Amid my busy timetable for the next two weeks, I will go through a portion of the Byzantine leaders and calculate what their totals are, using the Formula of yours (in my opinion). Again, you don't have to take heed, but I'll do it anyway

Regards,

- Knights -

-------------

Posted By: DSMyers1
Date Posted: 28-Apr-2008 at 03:41

Knights wrote:

DSMyers1 wrote:

Good feedback there, Knights. I'm not exactly an expert on Byzantium. I'm reevaluating my rankings. Alexios will move up to #2. I don't like Tzmiskes near that high, however. The empire was already strong when he took over; I don't see that he did that much for the empire besides using that strength to expand. I'm not going to put him in the top 100, I think. He has the problem of being the middle of 3 great emperors--I just don't feel that he himself did that much for the empire.

After reevaluating:

16

Heraclius

575

641

Byzantine

30.68

27

Alexios I Komnenos

1048

1118

Byzantine

27.52

53

John II Komnenos

1087

1143

Byzantine

22.09

70

Justinian I

482

565

Byzantine

20.51

74

Basil II

958

1025

Byzantine

20.30

81

Nikephoros II Phokas

912

969

Byzantine

19.34

101

Leo III the Isaurian

685

741

Byzantine

16.90

113

Maurice

539

602

Byzantine

15.15

114

Belisarius

505

565

Byzantine

15.05

119

Basil I the
Macedonian

811

886

Byzantine

14.69

140

Anastasius I

430

518

Byzantine

12.41

145

John I Tzimiskes

925

976

Byzantine

11.87

154

Romanos I

870

944

Byzantine

10.55

164

Narses

478

573

Byzantine

9.52

Thanks DSMyers. Amid my busy timetable for the next two weeks, I will go through a portion of the Byzantine leaders and calculate what their totals are, using the Formula of yours (in my opinion). Again, you don't have to take heed, but I'll do it anyway

Regards,

- Knights -

I have changed my formula somewhat--it's rather more complicated now than before! It is now:=(((TA+1-TB)*(TA*1.02+10)/10*((Dur.+4)/2.5)+(HP+1-TB)*(HP*1.01+10)/10)*((Imp.*1.003-0.6)/4)*((Opp.+4)/5))*(1+(GdBd-2.5)/12.5)*100/99.2882286

For the first six factors, see that same formula pdf I gave out before. For the last, I discussed that on the last page, IIRC. The slight tweaks (like the *1.003 multiplier) allow the numbers that otherwise would tie to essentially sort themselves according to what is the most important in my opinion.

One thing--the numbers are rather subjective (my opinion of a 3 vs. a 2, for instance, would be different than yours.) I suspect that essentially one person has to do all of the rankings to get any good compatibility from one country to another.....